Saturday, February 01, 2014

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Wasn't it just 2-3 days ago that MSNBC fired a staffer and the RNC refused to ever talk to the network again after an MSNBC tweet jokingly chided Republicans/conservatives in advance of a "multicultural" Cheerios ad to air during the Superbowl?

Heh...

Of course, the Coca-Cola company has long been a haven for subversive elements... I mean, "I'd like to buy the WORLD a coke"? Harmony?

Yes, Super Bowl ads tended to be incredibly frenetic with casts of thousands (mostly celebrity cameos) or frankly depressing. What was that one where the couple is driving off in a truck for World Cancer Day or something? I can't even remember the corporate sponsor. What were they trying to sell, exactly?

I liked the one where the guy keeps saving his son from peril at the last minute, and finally the car does it for him. And the one where the dog made friends with the Clydesdale. I didn't understand the one where Scarlett Johanson made soda in a machine and then tried to make her ad go viral by changing into something less sexy. Nor do I understand why her ad offended Palestinians.

There were several brands that actively made me dislike them more than I did coming into the game... I don't drink a lot of Bud products to begin with, but that horrifically stupid progression of how Bud can open doors other than those leading to urinal troughs has made me to decide to never drink Budweiser products ever again, never listen to the band One Republic ever again, never see another film with Arnold Schwarzennegger again, and I'm seriously thinking I may have played my last game ever of table tennis.

I never watch Super Bowl commercials, but the only memorably (good) ads I've seen during the entire football season were the series of Direct TV spots that showed one catastrophe after another happening after your cable system goes down, one of them ending with your grandfather getting mugged by rioters. Did those even get shown yesterday? And did they finally stop showing those moronic Geico commercials with the tree falling in the forest?

...that horrifically stupid progression of how Bud can open doors ... has made me to decide to never drink Budweiser products ever again, never listen to the band One Republic ever again, never see another film with Arnold Schwarzennegger again, and I'm seriously thinking I may have played my last game ever of table tennis.

Up here in Canuckistan, the only US commercials that made it through the filter were Wonderful Pistachios (Stephen Colbert) and a movie teaser for the next Captain America movie.
Everything else was Canadian commercials (Tim Hortons, etc.) and promos for shows on Canadian channels (CTV, HBOCanada, Space).
Were there any US commercials that were "great"?

One quibble. Coca-Cola has had a massive presence in emerging markets for 75 years. There's no "opening" needed.

Indeed. All you need to do is watch some old Michael Palin travelogues (Pole to Pole, Sahara, Himalaya) to know that. He'll be in some bumfuck town in the middle of nowhere in Zambia or Mali or Bhutan and there will be a coke sign.

Indeed. All you need to do is watch some old Michael Palin travelogues (Pole to Pole, Sahara, Himalaya) to know that. He'll be in some bumfuck town in the middle of nowhere in Zambia or Mali or Bhutan and there will be a coke sign.

Yes, Coke has long derived the vast majority of its profit internationally. The profit margin on single serve Cokes is orders of magnitude greater than the 2-liter bottles, cases, and fountain drinks consumed in the US. i.e. a Coke costs more than a beer or wine in most European restaurants. And, you usually get one of those old 7 oz. bottles, not even a full 12 oz.

One quibble. Coca-Cola has had a massive presence in emerging markets for 75 years. There's no "opening" needed.

That's fair. To clarify, Coke just aired the minority-American version of "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing." Coke just did with that ad, in Spanish-American and other minority American demographics, what they did with their most famous ad of all time with "white America."

Yes, Coke has long derived the vast majority of its profit internationally. The profit margin on single serve Cokes is orders of magnitude greater than the 2-liter bottles, cases, and fountain drinks consumed in the US. i.e. a Coke costs more than a beer or wine in most European restaurants. And, you usually get one of those old 7 oz. bottles, not even a full 12 oz.

It irritates me to no end that in many parts of the world Coke is still made with real sugar, and here in the wealthiest nation on earth we get high fructose corn syrup foisted on us.

Yes, Coke has long derived the vast majority of its profit internationally. The profit margin on single serve Cokes is orders of magnitude greater than the 2-liter bottles, cases, and fountain drinks consumed in the US. i.e. a Coke costs more than a beer or wine in most European restaurants. And, you usually get one of those old 7 oz. bottles, not even a full 12 oz.

I've been to restaurants in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Spain. U have never seen one where coke cost more than beer or wine. I have also never seen one that doesn't serve coke in a glass.

And regardless, >90% of the profits from restaurants selling coke is going to the restaurant, not to to coke. Extrapolating coke's profit from restaurant prices is batshit insane.

Also, when reviewing prices for European restaurants, please keep in mind that they do not have a custom of mandatory tipping.

There's a ton of HFCS in the Texas food supply, but nowadays you can get soda with sugar very readily in chain supermarkets. For a long time, here, "Dublin Dr. Pepper" was a cult luxury (one lonely bottler in central Texas kept using sugar after all the others switched). But the mainstream appeal was so strong that you can now find sugar versions of a lot of the major brands. Mexican groceries sell a lot of sugar sodas, both Mexican brands like Jarritos and Coke/Fanta products. Other regions might not have moved back toward sugar so notably.

I'm not sure there's a heck of a lot of difference healthwise, though I'm no nutritionist. Both offer pretty empty calories. The main public health danger in HFCS as I understand it is that it's less expensive, so people use more of it. But as noted, that's a matter of trade and agricultural policy, not a law of nature.

I can't taste the difference myself, not that I have much opportunity. During the SB I enjoyed a Caffeine Free Coca-Cola Zero. Ah, cranky old age.

Beet and cane sugars should be chemically identical, at least in their most refined versions. Sometimes there's a marketing advantage to identifying cane sugar, sometimes in omitting mention of beet sugar. Strange how trivial stuff like that becomes significant in selling.

Wow... There were a few raised eyebrows last week when PPP released a poll showing McConnell only up on Grimes by a single point last week, but it was a poll for a left-leaning 503 and PPP does have a D lean.

In the "damn both houses" spirit of OTP thread accord, I feel we should mention the low-burn brouhaha in liberal circles that Volkswagon aired a sexist ad where all of the engineers were old white guys and when their cars turn over 100K miles the engineer gets HIS wings.

It's not quite the same level of burn as the "how dare you use a song about national unity to promote national unity" thing with the Coke spot, but still, there it is.

In the "damn both houses" spirit of OTP thread accord, I feel we should mention the low-burn brouhaha in liberal circles that Volkswagon aired a sexist ad where all of the engineers were old white guys and when their cars turn over 100K miles the engineer gets HIS wings.

I saw the commercial and noted at least one black engineer on the floor, commenting to myself, "Well clearly they're making an effort to seem culturally inclusive."

No word on if this was a real brother or a cornball brother of course.

You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said ... uh, "Did you eat yet or what?" and Tom Christie said, "No, didchoo?" Not, did you, didchoo eat? Jew? No, not did you eat, but Jew eat? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?

People who get sore about the choice of language used to praise their country and what it stands for mystify me

Indeed. It would make more sense to get mad if there were English songs of praise for Kim Jong-Un. Shouldn't the fact that languages around the world have lyrics to "America the Beautiful" be a good thing?

It's genuinely shocking that a sitting governor and presidential aspirant finds himself or his key defenders writing a sentence like this: "He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior."

There was some consternation on the left last week when the GOP released its hazy 'principles' on immigration that would be the backbone of a GOP-led immigration bill and Obama didn't dismiss it out of hand (it was essentially limited to a "path to legal status").

I wondered to some aghast liberal friends at the time if perhaps the administration was simply feeding the GOP rope -- knowing full-well that even an unworkable, wholly unacceptable to the Democratic side of the aisle bill was likely to be DOA in the Republican caucus. In essence, it cost Obama virtually nothing to say publicly "Sure, I'll listen and I don't want to prejudge a bill not yet written", even if the principles themselves inevitably lead to a bill that wouldn't be signed because there more than likely will not BE a bill.

Strictly from a political perspective - it's actually a tight spot for both parties... On the one hand, the things the administration has done via EO are pretty small and trivial. There's not a lot of "there" there -- just a bit of sizzle ("see? I'm trying!") for the left and a bit of sizzle from the opposite direction ("see? He's not even enforcing the LAWS NOW ON IMMIGRATION!!!") for the right. The reality is that deportations are ahead of the pace of the Bush administration. In addition more money has been dumped on fences and border security.

In short, I think from a policy perspective - the administration has held up its end of the bargain (increased border security expenditures, increased immigration raids and deportations), but politically they've been loathe to highlight it... and in fact, quite the opposite, have highlighted what are relative 'visual stunts'.

By the same token - the GOP finds itself in a pay now or pay later bind... Probably quite rightly, they're increasingly thinking that they'll be scuttling their 2014 chances if they piss off their base by attempting any kind of immigration reform proposal. I think that even if you let the Tea Party alone write the bill - it wouldn't almost instantly be shredded on conservative blogs and large swaths of talk radio (clearly after 2012, Fox News got the memo and isn't -- yet -- ready to throw in with that crowd).

More and more thought, they're painting themselves into a long-term corner. There are 108 "minority-majority" districts -- only 9 held by Republicans. The average red district is 75% white. If those were static values, it would be one thing... but that 108 is bound to grow -- and by most accounts, is growing pretty rapidly. Meanwhile, I really doubt a party can plan to contend for the majority (long-term) relying on a 3 to 1 white district base. The numbers just say otherwise.

It's really why the Super Bowl ad kerfuffle has meaning -- like it or not, that IS the base (or least a good enough chunk of it to be dooming any reform effort) the GOP is worried about... and they simply are not "principled conservatives who love LEGAL immigration".

They are at best, Bill O'Reilly types bemoaning the lost America... and rapidly, the Richard Cohen type enablers who are at least willing to soothe those scared folks from the middle/middle-left are being cast out of the discussion by age or increasing incompatibility with even the 'middle'.... and that's before we get into the truly atrocious and out-and-out racist jacknapes like Steve King, who are very much a statistically meaningful portion of the GOP 'base'.

Long-term, though -- the GOP is rapidly losing the ability to cover for portions of their base by simply insisting it's all about the law. It's not. It never has been - it's been about fears over "diversity"... just like it was with the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Bohemians, the eastern Europeans, etc. Especially in a digital media age, you can't serve both masters.

Sure you want to go to Costco, Joey? They pay a living wage there, you know. You'd be perpetuating the RDDB ethos.

I know this will probably come as a shock to a guy like you, but not every person in the world makes every decision in their entire life based on political considerations. In other words, I don't give a ****ing crap.

What do you expect from a guy with clear Scandinavian roots... He probably just wishes America would trade its watered down beer for wormwood alcohol and reshape our beautiful harbors into fjords, to say nothing of replacing the hallowed family dog with the family walrus or something.

More and more thought, they're painting themselves into a long-term corner. There are 108 "minority-majority" districts -- only 9 held by Republicans. The average red district is 75% white. If those were static values, it would be one thing... but that 108 is bound to grow -- and by most accounts, is growing pretty rapidly.

Not only that, but the GOP is losing moderate suburban women (and to a lesser extent, men) who are turned off by some of the racist and xenophobic remarks of some on the far right on the issue of immigration.

It is interesting how this has evolved to become a "wedge issue" for the Dems (as has gay marriage really), much like Bush and the GOP used religious issues as wedge issues back in 2004. I don't mean that in a perjorative sense either, its an important issue, but it clearly has the added benefit of fracturing the GOP and/or making them take unpopular stands.

It is interesting how this has evolved to become a "wedge issue" for the Dems (as has gay marriage really), much like Bush and the GOP used religious issues as wedge issues back in 2004. I don't mean that in a perjorative sense either, its an important issue, but it clearly has the added benefit of fracturing the GOP and/or making them take unpopular stands.

It's interesting that you bring up Bush... because of course, he via Rove's projections most certainly have said what plenty of other pundits have said.

I kind of wonder when/if the "Texas wing of the Republican party" will exert itself in this debate -- because by virtually ALL accounts, Texan Republicans are a lot closely to moderate middle on immigration than is the rest of the GOP. Rick Perry, as I recall, likewise got dinged up pretty bad over immigration -- overshadowed by his stupor-driven campaign. Likewise, I'm not hearing a whole lot from even Ted Cruz on the matter... nor Cornyn...

In short, at a state level - the Texas Republican party seems to have developed a manner of approaching the debate such that it doesn't have to kowtow to folks scared of tamale stands... WIthout even looking, I'm betting that a disproportionate share of those 9 GOP-held minority-majority districts are in Texas.

I'm not sure if it's just the still poisonous nature of the Bush brand, the desire of Texas Republicans to first secure national standing, or a combination of that and other factors... but somehow, the Republican party in Texas seems to have at least made state-level detente on the matter and I'm puzzled as to why their voices aren't louder.... I mean, Iowa congressman Steve King is hardly on the forefront of the border issue geographically.

Not only that, but the GOP is losing moderate suburban women (and to a lesser extent, men) who are turned off by some of the racist and xenophobic remarks of some on the far right on the issue of immigration.

I'll extend this anecdotally beyond the suburbs. In my experience there is a small be notable "awakening" of sorts of not-quite-liberal but fed-up-with-the-status-quo-conservative women in the deep south. I'm seeing quite a lot of women from the rural south (south GA; as I say, it's anecdotal) who are raising voices that were previously not raised. They're not pro-choice feminists by any stretch, but they seem to be getting tired of the angry white male power structure they've endured forever and a day.

which is exactly why it's not a long-term problem for republicans. in the short term, republicans gain (or at least hold) an advantage by being against...well, literally everything. but in the long-term, the second they come around on any one of the many popular issues they currently oppose, instead of being the part of obstructionists opposed to everything, they become the party that delivers results the liberals never could.

I believe most of the sugar that is being kept out of the United States by a high tarrif comes from Brazil these days. Although I suppose it isn't surprising that some here prefer the taste of Fidel's Finest.

The second they come around on any one of the many popular issues they currently oppose, a significant portion of their current base will claim anyone who tries this is not a Republican anymore and oppose them. It's a problem in the sense that they still have to conjure up a national majority, and their current base is a big liability by preventing any moderation from their current positions, or being perfectly willing to bolt if it happens anyway.

In short, at a state level - the Texas Republican party seems to have developed a manner of approaching the debate such that it doesn't have to kowtow to folks scared of tamale stands... WIthout even looking, I'm betting that a disproportionate share of those 9 GOP-held minority-majority districts are in Texas.

Which I'm sure contributes to Texas remaining such a red state despite the continued influx of Latinos. They aren't pissing them off!

the second they come around on any one of the many popular issues they currently oppose, instead of being the part of obstructionists opposed to everything, they become the party that delivers results the liberals never could

This is not my experience. Minorities are not dumb*. They can see that one party celebrates them and tries and the other party does not appreciate them at all. One of the reasons the GOP is basically dead in California is a couple cycles of anti-minority (specifically Hispanic) rhetoric (and actions also) from the GOP and so minorities went from mostly supporting Democrats to pretty much always supporting them (and kept growing in vote share). I think Pete Wilson was the GOP governor that is popularly credited with causing much of the change.

* Not any dumber than the rest of the electorate anyway. Which means they pay attention to things they care about. And they care about this stuff a great deal. If you follow the Spanish media** they spend a bunch of time on this stuff, and while Obama gets hit a bit because of the deportations they very much know (or at least think they know) that the GOP hates them.

** Which I don't directly, but I have many close friends, including my best friend in the world, who do follow it pretty closely.

Which I'm sure contributes to Texas remaining such a red state despite the continued influx of Latinos. They aren't pissing them off!

Part of the deal is who is voting in Texas. The vote share for Hispanics is much lower than the vote share currently. The perennial challenge of Team Blue, getting its constituents to vote. I believe vote patterns are headed in the right direction (not sure though, I admit) and I know the demographic share is, so Texas GOP better hope they stay ahead of it. A purple of blue Texas (for national elections) really hurts GOP White House hopes.

Latino Republican votes seem to have peaked in2000 for GWB and Hutchison, and fallen off pretty hard.

A few cycles of constant branding of the national GOP as the party of "He Hate Mi" will torpedo the best of state level efforts.

Part of the deal is who is voting in Texas

Which is why the rest of the GOP is terrified of "amnesty" and bringing Hispanic voters out of the shadows and to the polls. If you amnesty existing undocumented Hispanics both Texas and Georgia become purple states with contested governorships by 2018.

Minorities are not dumb*. They can see that one party celebrates them and tries and the other party does not appreciate them at all.

I'm constantly taken aback by "moderate" GOP supporters who think that trotting Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio out there will make a difference in the demographics. They don't seem to have grasped that the problem isn't "how do we win Hispanic votes this year," but "how do we modify our national profile such that Hispanic voters in 20 years will be more open to our platform, rather than being 'the new African-Americans.'"

You are right. He was a huge supporter of it and according to Wikipedia ...

Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election.[7]

So I might be overselling the odds of backlash against the national GOP, but I do think California is a cautionary tale for the GOP. Though I suspect they will ignore it.

I'm constantly taken aback by "moderate" GOP supporters who think that trotting Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio out there will make a difference in the demographics. They don't seem to have grasped that the problem isn't "how do we win Hispanic votes this year," but "how do we modify our national profile such that Hispanic voters in 20 years will be more open to our platform, rather than being 'the new African-Americans.'"

While at the same time, bemoaning that minority voters are racist because they always support candidates of their own color (you know, popular candidates like Michael Steele or Alan Keyes!)

Not to mention that there are an increasing number of Chinese and Korean and Indian immigrants who hear all that venom directed towards non-white "why won't they learn English" Americans and think, "They're talking about us, too, aren't they?" Although to be fair, a big chunk of that Asian-American Democratic lean comes from the fact that they mostly live in urban areas. Special cases: Republicans can still get Vietnamese votes, out of anti-Communism, but that's fading along generational lines (as it is also fading among Cubans). And Filipinos - half of the people they meet already assume that they're Hispanic anyway, just because of their surnames.

Not to mention that there are an increasing number of Chinese and Korean and Indian immigrants who hear all that venom directed towards non-white "why won't they learn English" Americans and think, "They're talking about us, too, aren't they?"

And they are. Indian immigrants, especially, have to deal with the "speaks with an accent" demerit in addition to the "looks vaguely like a Muslim, and occasionally *is* a Muslim" black mark. The GOP base isn't really specific in who doesn't make the cut. They're more specific in who gets the "one of us" chant at the convention.

Not to mention that there are an increasing number of Chinese and Korean and Indian immigrants who hear all that venom directed towards non-white "why won't they learn English"

Something I tend to really struggle with, just as a concept -- the "learn english!!!" thing....

For one thing, America has almost always been multilingual... There were a whole host of areas where you wouldn't hear English spoken, where you couldn't read a paper, a menu, or whatnot if you didn't know German/Italian/Swedish/you name it.

Obviously, if you step back -- what's changed is that 1)transportation has advanced to the point that like-speaking communities are no longer self-contained islands unto themselves... once upon a time, plenty of people lived their entire lives without leaving a few square mile radius. That's not the case anymore, and 2)the digital age has made things much more omnipresent.

What surprises me, I guess, is how few people who tend to pound the "LEARN ENGLISH!!!" table are so unaware about it... My family's heritage is Polish on both sides -- and both sets of grandparents were bilingual. Historically, this is ALWAYS how things have worked -- my grandparents on both sides were either born in America to Polish immigrants or, immigrated at a very young age. Children simply have an easier time learning languages -- so as is par for the course, the parents struggled to learn English, the children pretty easily picked up both, and often filled the role of interpreter. I also remember my dad telling a story of riding with his uncle, his uncle getting pulled over for driving the wrong way down a one-way street and the exasperated cop explaining the street was "one way", while my uncle in broken English pleaded that he WAS only driving "one way". Inevitably, it fades over generations... My parents knew just a few sparse phrases and words and I can pretty much just toast and curse and in Polish. I honestly wish I knew more than I do.

Despite the fact that so many of my now-in-their 60s uncles and aunts grew up in a household where they had relatives who knew little to no English - they now jump immediately onto the LEARN ENGLISH bandwagon so quickly and easily.

It's difficult for me to fathom that so many people trace their lineage so directly back to English speaking immigrants... or that they believe their own ancestors - in so many cases, grandparents (my great-grandparents) you'd think they'd remember faced the exact same struggles.

Despite the fact that so many of my now-in-their 60s uncles and aunts grew up in a household where they had relatives who knew little to no English - they now jump immediately onto the LEARN ENGLISH bandwagon so quickly and easily.

I assume they were/are working class. The "speak English" complaint is usually a side-step means of complaining that other people are taking their jobs. "People should learn English" basically boils down to "I think people should hire me and people like me, and if people speak Spanish as their first language, they're not like me."

What surprises me, I guess, is how few people who tend to pound the "LEARN ENGLISH!!!" table are so unaware about it... My family's heritage is Polish on both sides -- and both sets of grandparents were bilingual. Historically, this is ALWAYS how things have worked

I'm Irish-American, so basically my more immediate ancestors all spoke English, including my Grandparents who were all born in Ireland+ of course at some point in the 17th or 18th century my ancestors spoke another language before being forced to speak English (in their own Country).
It was only in college that I first learned that many many people of my own generation had bilingual parents or grandparents.

My wife is Chinese, none of her siblings are remotely fluent in English (one is fluent in Spanish though...)- but their children all speak English well.

I'm Irish-American, so basically my more immediate ancestors all spoke English, including my Grandparents who were all born in Ireland+ of course at some point in the 17th or 18th century my ancestors spoke another language before being forced to speak English (in their own Country).

I find the "speak English" complaint to center around Scot-Irish working classes. Which is to say, "southern rednecks." I guess it might still be popular in the WASPish northeast too.

Despite the fact that so many of my now-in-their 60s uncles and aunts grew up in a household where they had relatives who knew little to no English - they now jump immediately onto the LEARN ENGLISH bandwagon so quickly and easily.

It depends. I don't argue that there aren't lots of racists and such in the Learn English camp but in all those immigrant stories from history, the immigrant communities don't start really making it in America until they learn English. That is usually with the first generation born here (or brought here very young). I do think a lot of the Learn English sentiment is a fear that with growing liberalization that won't be pushed and we'll end up with a polylingual nation. I happen to agree with the sentiment that a truly polylingual nation would hurt our unity.

Now, before you jump all over me - really, stop typing for just a sec - I don't push for an "official" language nor do I weep for areas where English isn't the primary language. I'm just saying that we benefit from all speaking a common language and that for anyone to really make it in America, they will have to learn English. But I don't think anyone knows that better than the immigrants. They realize they aren't really incorporated in the country if they can't speak English, it's obviously very hard and personal for them that English is a de facto national language. And, for the most part, they came here to be American and that means, has always meant, probably will always mean, speaking English. Not as a first language but fluently. If you show me a family not trying to learn the language, I'll show you a family that probably isn't keen to stay very long. Thus, you don't need to tell them to Learn English. They're working on it. Desperately.

Therefore, I think we have a good system: no official language so no unnecessary bureaucratic obstacle to coming here. But a de facto language that insures that anyone who does come here will eventually learn the language, and language is culture. The American culture is presented in English. It just is. The folks that arrive on our shores will learn English or their kids will and that brings them truly into the melting pot. Otherwise, we just have little islands and aren't really united. By bringing them into American culture, we enrich that culture. When I go to the Chinese place down the street, I'm going to learn nothing from them if we don't speak the same language.

All of this is irrelevant to the commercial debate which is stupid. It was a great commercial I thought, one of the best of the night. Of course, I knew immediately that it would cause this reaction in some circles.

I'm just saying that we benefit from all speaking a common language and that for anyone to really make it in America, they will have to learn English. But I don't think anyone knows that better than the immigrants. They realize they aren't really incorporated in the country if they can't speak English, it's obviously very hard and personal for them that English is a de facto national language. And, for the most part, they came here to be American and that means, has always meant, probably will always mean, speaking English.

Spanish speaking immigrants "learn English" at the exact same rates and at the exact same pace as previous generations of European non-English speakers. By the third generation, which you reference in the first paragraph @90, native-Spanish speaking immigrant families are near universally bilingual or English-only speaking households.

EDIT: as an example, Matthew Yglesias is a third generation descendant of Spanish-speaking immigrants.

A casual stroll in the park, and I walk past a family - two adults, two children, probably 5-7 years old. Adult speaking to adult: Spanish. Adult speaking to child: Spanish. Child speaking to child: English. Child speaking to adult: flip a coin as to which language that is going to be in. And all of that is just absolutely, totally expected. That's the way it works. Which is also exactly what Rickey! is saying.

have an arrangement of the Star-Spangled Banner that incorporates "Lift Every Voice and Sing". I look forward someday to unleashing that upon a playoff game somewhere. Hopefully Georgia.

Or anywhere. I'd love to hear that arrangement. I love the Star-Spangled Banner we have, but "Lift Ev'ry Voice" is the most melodic and moving anthem we've ever produced, especially considering the context in which it was composed. Anyone who doubts this statement almost certainly has never heard it.

Senator Warren has proposed letting the Post Office do small financial transactions including check cashing, ATMS, and short term loans. The upshot is that the USPS will become more profitable, predatory payday lenders will no longer be the only option for the poor, and reduce some of the significant fee burden that the poor face without a bank account. She's living up to the billing so far, I think

Although the two highest-ranking Indian-American politicians in the U.S. that I know of are both Republican governors. Go figure.

It's almost like the Democratic talking points incessantly repeated here about the inevitable demise of the GOP might be wrong. BTW, I'm sure folks here who are keeping an eye out for racist campaign tactics will (eventually) have something to say about Louisiana Democrats darkening Bobby Jindal's photo in their campaign literature directed at the Cajun population.

It appears that Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is serious about running for President in 2016. Although I think there is room for a younger, non-retread candidate to get some traction -- Gary Hart style (without the Monkey Business) -- I don't think O'Malley is up to it. He'd be easier to run against than Biden. Even I could script a devastating TV ad focusing on the Maryland Prison Scandal and his tepid response.

Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley could be white, brown, green, yellow, or purple, but as long as they keep spouting their current philosophy, they'd best be advised to stay in their home states. Their political base is scarcely distinguishable from any other non-insane Republican, and the second they try to advance much beyond that, they'll see what their party thinks of them.

EDIT: They'd have even less chance of getting elected president than Martin O'Malley, which is to say less than slim to none. O'Malley's little more than a generic Democratic politician who excites not a single voter even in his own home state.

The first Louisiana Civil Code was in French, and it is still the one that takes precedent if there is a conflict. The history of Louisiana throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century is the history of the French-speaking peoples disenfranchisement, or at least the etiolation of their influence in public policy-making. How did this happen? Because they were illiterate, in both French and English, and as public school education proliferated, it proliferated in English until by the early years of the 20th century, speaking French was discouraged and teaching French was suppressed.

Of course, now Cajun and French Louisiana is preserved as just one big never-ending Octobrefeast. The Cajun and Creole culture are only preserved as tourist artifacts.